We’re not going to agree. This is why I always regret posting anything in a political thread.
We all have a common thread here and that is some desire to lift weights, become stronger, more athletic, more aesthetic, compete, some thing centered in the GYM.
I’m going to stay in that arena from now on.
True. Posting in a political thread is largely a waste of time. But I have fun doing it even though it’s fruitless 99% of the time.
That’s cool but I hope you’re not making that decision just because we disagree! I should post on PWI less, but I go in cycles of posting tons and then not.
Like an addict though I find my way back!
Quite the opposite. The people in Wyoming should infer that they matter very much for example. That their vote is worth about 65X in the senate as someone from California.
I don’t think you have thought about your position here. I challenge you to really think about why you think the electoral college is the best way, and why you think each state should get 2 senators regardless of population. Maybe you can come up with a good argument. You haven’t yet. If you can’t, please consider other positions and their merit. You may find you support something more defendable.
To put it another way you don’t need to convince voting Americans you are the best choice. You need to convince voting Americans in a certain amount of spots. You can forget about the rest.
The constitution never has never will mention the president should be selected by a popular vote. Its like you’re arguing against the constitution that made this country so great. It was meant so that the voices of the masses can’t drown out minority interest. Why would someobdy in Wyoming want to live by the same set of rules dictated by somebody in NYC. Those masses collect in these urban areas for like minded desires. I indeed think their vote should matter as it does constitutionally (ie less weight).
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed…
And yet the Constitution has been changed numerous times. Do you think the Constitution should have never been changed in any way? Are you anti bill of rights?
They don’t in the least bit. They have state and local representation. Just more power at the federal level per capita.
Why would someone in NYC’s vote be less important for the Presidency than someone in Wyoming?
I just answered that.
The last amendment to the constitution was almost 30 years ago and it wasn’t of that magnitude. You’re never going to get a popular vote amendment done. The states are meant to have power too including their minority populations. @studhammer was spot on.
Not really. You said why would they want to be dictated by them and I pointed out that they wouldn’t. How would they be dictated at the state and local level just because they have an equal vote to me in Kansas?
So because it was 30 years ago it should never be changed again?
Again this is not an argument for saying the current system makes sense.
At one time people would have said you’re never going to have women vote.
I am more interested in what is right or fair. I don’t think the current system is as fair as going by popular vote for presidency, and assigning senators by population.
They don’t have to even if we change the system. I am not advocating that California dictate state level laws. Wyoming can handle that for their own state.
I have no argument about the legality of the electoral college, or the probability of changing the system to popular vote. I accept it is legal, and unlikely to change. I don’t think it is defendable as a fair system though.
I am not arguing about what was meant to be. What was meant to be is an unfair system. That is what I am arguing.
Another fair question is why would those in NY / California want rules dictated to them by Wyoming? That is happening a lot more than the other way around (arguably by 65 fold if comparing WY to CA).
Yes really. I pointed out that the constitution was never framed for the popular vote. This isn’t a minor amendment or addition. Its a change in the whole frame of our election system which goes against the reasoning of the founding fathers.
You used an example that it has been changed like this is a common occurrence. I merely pointed out that its NOT and certainly not of that magnitude. I’m not justifying it shouldn’t be done just pointing out you’re argument is flawed in scope and size.
It wasn’t meant to be, just a statement of fact. You WILL never get the votes needed.
Ok so look up the term unfair. It that a factual term or an opinionative term. 1+1=2? Fact. My brother got bigger cookie than me because he was older = unfair. Opinion. I accept your opinion but strongly disagree. (also Opinion.)
The same reasoning that said black people and women couldn’t vote. It would have FAR less impact than those decisions.
Of course it’s been a common occurrence. It doesn’t happen monthly or anything but changing it has happened.
Again said at one time about women and blacks voting.
So residents of WY getting 65X more voting power in the senate compared to residents of CA is fair? To me it isn’t opinion to think it is unfair. What merit do the residents of WY have that grant them so much more voting power? If there is a reason, then I can accept it is opinion (like since your brother is bigger he gets more cookie). If there isn’t a good reason, it seems likely that it is indeed unfair.
Its because you think we live in a democracy which we do NOT. In a democracy this would be ‘unfair’ because it goes against that notion. Let me quote something that better explains this…
"In a republic, the people elect representatives to make the laws and an executive to enforce those laws. While the majority still rules in the selection of representatives, an official charter lists and protects certain inalienable rights, thus protecting the minority from the arbitrary political whims of the majority. "
I don’t think that. I accept we live in a Democratic Republic. Additionally, living in a Democratic Republic does not make granting more voting power to certain people fair. It makes it allowable.
It’s already being worked on. Might not happen anytime soon might never happen. But it’s clear that many people (and states) think it’s worth considering.
“The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). As of July 2020, it has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.
The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 41 state legislative chambers in 24 states. It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 9 states possessing 88 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA). It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in 2 states possessing 27 more electoral votes (GA, MO). The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in various years in all 50 states.”
This we agree upon. The ‘fair’ part I supposed we just won’t. Its fair under the rule of law that we live by and this country was formed on. I personally disagree with many laws but follow them (or mosty LOL - see pharma) just the same as I would rather live HERE than any other place on this earth.
Yes and we ALL KNOW which ones.
PS. Thanks for keeping this a civil debate of the minds versus personal call outs. I hate posting in politics because people start name calling / personal attacks due to differing opinions. Its good we can chat like adults.
@mnben87 Also you know I love you like a fat kid love cake. I just think we are politically opposite… but still brothers in iron!
AR, AZ, OK, VA, GA, MO, NC, and NV are not traditional blue states. At least not consistent ones.
I have zero doubts had Trump and Bush won popular vote but lost electoral that it would have an even bigger push in red states. A lot of anti popular vote states/people are that way because in recent times when it came into play they were happy with the results. If Trump loses the election and gets significantly more votes they will be clamoring for it.
I simply think it’s more fair/makes more sense. The results are whatever.
I have no doubt Republicans in California or New York would love to contribute to their candidate. So would dems in Alabama.